Absolute error, based on PPM: measured_ppm / 1 000 000 * F - for F = 911 MHz or F = 911 000 000 Hz it gives 225.928 Hz. But any decent AFC should correct differences of 5-10 kHz with ease, or even more. This is negligible.
What are you calibrating with and what is the reference frequency source? Just out of curiosity. On Tuesday, March 26, 2019 at 12:13:41 AM UTC+1, rich T wrote: > > Luc > > The dongle I'm using that been running for over a week now, so warming up > should not be a issue. The dongle ppm error is + 0.248. I believe that is > about 5 Hz, but I might be wrong. I also tried the RFM69 sources > frequencies and get the same results. Let go back to the original fc and > change the timing just see what happens. > > Rich > > On Monday, March 25, 2019 at 6:45:05 PM UTC-4, [email protected] wrote: > >> Rich and Paul, >> >> I am puzzled by the fact that after the first received message on channel >> zero 5 messages in a row are missed AND after the next init NO SINGLE >> message is missed for a long period.. >> >> I Don't think it has to to with warming up of the dongle, but it can have >> an influence. >> >> Another possibility is a to precise (time-out) timing. This is important >> when the program has to scan more than one transmitter but is less critical >> when only one transmitter is read. >> >> Could you both try to add the -ex parameter for extra loop timing? >> >> Try values such as '-ex 65' to '-ex 200' (ms). Maybe the percentage of >> missed signals will drop then. >> >> Luc >> >
